[1] The petitioner, Sammy Odhiambo Onindo, was arraigned before the Magistrate’s Court on 27 th August 2012, charged with defilement contrary to Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2006 in Rongo Criminal Case No. 421 of 2012. The particulars of the charge were that on the 24 th day of August 2012 at Ranen area in North Sakwa Location in Migori County within the Republic of Kenya, he intentionally and unlawfully caused his penis to penetrate into the anus of T A O, a boy aged 10 years.
[2] The petitioner denied those allegations and upon the facts being tried by the learned magistrate, he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed that decision to the High Court in Homa Bay High Court Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2013: Sammy Odhiambo Odindo v Republic . That appeal was heard and dismissed on 9 th October 2014. The conviction was affirmed and sentence upheld. At paragraph 22 of the Judgment, Hon. Majanja, J. , in his judgment dated 9 th October 2014, held as follows at paragraph 22 with particular regard to the sentence imposed by the lower court:
“Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2006 provides that “A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.” As the child was 10 years old, the sentence imposed was therefore within the law. It was neither harsh nor excessive. I uphold the same.”
[3] Undeterred, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, being Kisumu Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2020: Sammy Odhiambo Odindo v Republic . His second appeal on conviction and sentence was similarly dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 9 th May 2025.
[4] Upon the dismissal of his second appeal, the petitioner resorted to filing the instant Petition contending that Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, which provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment deprives the court of the discretion to determine the appropriate punishment, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. The petitioner averred that in this Petition, he is not challenging his conviction, but is questioning the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence which, in his view, denied him the right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution.
[5] At paragraph 6 of his Petition, the petitioner averred that mandatory minimum sentences also offend Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and that the words “shall” and “not less than” in the said provisions of the Sexual Offences Act confine magistrates to passing sentences pre-determined by the legislature; thereby offending the doctrine of separation of powers.
[6] The petitioner further contended that the proviso to Section 124 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80, Laws of Kenya, is unconstitutional in so far as it distinguishes sexual offences from other offences on the crucial issue of corroboration, hence lowering the threshold of the legal burden of proof for this category of offences, contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution. He further stated that equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms, and underscores the fact that every person shall enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights to the greatest extent possible.
[7] At paragraph 8 of his Petition, the petitioner stated that, under Article 50(2)(p) and (q) of the Constitution, every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments for an offence, if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing and if convicted, to appeal to, or apply for review by a higher court as prescribed by law.
[8] Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:
[a] A declaration that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 25, 27(1), (4), 28 and 160(1) of the Constitution.
[b] A declaration that the sentence of life imprisonment which he is serving pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional to the extent that the court was deprived of the discretion to determine the appropriate punishment taking into account the individual circumstances of his case, including mitigating factors.
[c] A declaration that the sentence of life imprisonment which he is serving pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it took away the courts discretion, thereby ignoring the fact that the individualization of punishment requires proper consideration of the individual circumstances of each accused person.
[d] An order that the petitioner be referred back to his respective trial court for mitigation and re-sentencing pursuant Paragraphs 4.8.18 of the Judiciary Sentencing Police Guidelines, 2023.
[9] In his Supporting Affidavit filed alongside the Petition, the petitioner reiterated the factual basis of the Petition and averred that he was not challenging his conviction. He underscored his assertion that he is questioning the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences which denied him the right to fair trial under Article 50 of the Constitution. He reiterated his prayers in the Petition and averred that the matter ought to be referred back to the trial court for mitigation and resentencing in accordance with Paragraph 4.8.18 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023.
[10] The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions, pursuant to the directions given herein on 19 th February 2026. In his written submissions, the petitioner invited the Court to interrogate the constitutionality of the sentence imposed on him. He added that fair hearing does not end with the determination of the guilt of an accused person but extends to sentencing; and that the sentencing process must also comply with constitutional standards of fairness.
[11] The petitioner submitted that, under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, the Court is required to impose a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment where the complainant is below the age of eleven years; and therefore compels courts to impose a predetermined punishment regardless of the individual circumstances of the offender or the offence. He contended that the provision contravenes Articles 27, 28 and 48 of the Constitution as well as Paragraphs 4.8.14, 4.8.16, 4.8.17, 4.8.18, 4.8.21, 4.8.23, 4.8.25 and 4.8.26 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines which underscore the importance of individualized sentencing.
[12] It was further the submission of the petitioner that in administering criminal justice, the courts are enjoined to conform to international standards. In particular, the petitioner relied on Article 2(5) of the Constitution which incorporates the general rules of international law and treaties ratified by Kenya into domestic law. He urged the Court to find that Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is a negation Article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). He relied on Protus Buliba Shikuku v Attorney General , Constitutional Reference No. 3 of 2011 for the proposition that constitutional interpretation must promote justice, fairness and protection of fundamental rights.
[13] Lastly, the petitioner submitted that mandatory sentences undermine the principle of judicial independence. He relied on Article 160 of the Constitution and submitted that mandatory sentences in effect removes judicial discretion and the ability of courts to determine appropriate punishment based on the circumstances of each case. He therefore urged the Court to allow his Petition and grant the orders prayed for, including the imposition of a determinate period of imprisonment in place of life imprisonment.
[14] Counsel for the respondent filed written submissions dated 19 th February 2025 contending that this Petition is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process. According to the respondent the appellant has exhausted his right of appeal and therefore the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised by him in the Petition. Counsel submitted that the High court cannot re-open, re-hear and or entertain a matter that was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal; which is a court superior to it. The respondent posited that, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, his option was to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court.
[15] It was further the submission of the respondent that the petitioner had not demonstrated that there is new and compelling evidence relating to his case which was not available at the time of his trial or that his rights were violated during the trial or appeal. The respondent urged the Court to find that the petitioner herein has not raised any new issue or violation of right during trial or appeal, but seeks instead to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal on sentence.
[16] The respondent further submitted that the Supreme Court of Kenya has effectively upheld the mandatory life sentence, and therefore the sentence provided for in Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, is lawful. Counsel submitted, with reference to the case of Francis Krioko Muatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR, that although an avalanche of applications was thereafter made by prisoners seeking review of the mandatory sentences on the basis of that decision, the Supreme Court clarified its position in its directions issued in 2021 that the decision applied to murder cases only. It was therefore the contention of the respondent that Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is lawful and that courts have continued to impose life sentences in defilement cases under that provision.
[17] The respondent also referred to the case of Manyeso v Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2021) and pointed out that, whereas the Court of Appeal had, in that case, declared life imprisonment unconstitutional and substituted the same with a determinate period of thirty (30) years imprisonment, that decision was overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal had ventured outside its mandate and powers. Accordingly, the respondent invited the Court to dismiss the petitioner's petition for lack of merit.
[18] The penalty for defilement is prescribed in Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. It provides:
A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
[19] The offence, in this instance, was committed against a 10-year old child and therefore the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court was lawful for purposes of Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. In the premises, the single issue for determination herein is whether the sentence of life imprisonment as provided for in Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act offends Articles 27, 28 or 48 of the Constitution.
[20] As was pointed out by counsel for the respondent, the constitutionality of the life sentence for purposes of Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act was the subject of consideration in the case of Manyeso v Republic [2023] KECA 827 (KLR). The Court of Appeal took the view that:
“An indeterminate life sentence was inhumane treatment and violated the right to dignity under article 28 of the Constitution. An indeterminate life sentence without any prospect of release or a possibility of review was degrading and inhuman punishment. It was a principle in international law that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect of release if that rehabilitation was achieved.”
[21] The State appealed to the Supreme Court in Republic v Manyeso (Petition E013 of 2024) [2025] KESC 16 (KLR) (11 April 2025) (Judgment) and the Supreme Court reiterated its position that:
64. Paragraph 11 to 14 of the Muruatetu directions are very clear that the decision in the Muruatetu case did not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code , Sexual Offences Act or any other statute. Further, that the Muruatetu case cannot be said to be the authority for stating that all provisions of the law prescribing minimum sentences are inconsistent with the Constitution . Paragraphs 93 to 97 of the Muruatetu decision are also explicit that it is not for the court to define what constitutes a life sentence. While we appreciated that a life sentence could mean a certain minimum or maximum time to be set by a judicial officer, this court made the following recommendations to the Attorney General to develop legislation on what constitutes a life sentence:
94. We recognize that although the Judiciary released elaborate and comprehensive Sentencing Policy Guidelines in 2016, there are no specific provisions for the sentence of life imprisonment, because it is an indeterminate sentence. Nevertheless, we are in agreement with the High Court decision in Jackson Wangui, supra, which found that it is not for the court to define what constitutes a life sentence or what number of years must first be served by a prisoner on life sentence before they are considered on parole. This is a function within the realm of the Legislature.
95. We also acknowledge that in Kenya and internationally, sentencing should not only be used for the purpose of retribution, it is also for the rehabilitation of the prisoner as well as for the protection of civilians who may be harmed by some prisoners. We find the comparative jurisprudence with regard to the indeterminate life sentence is compelling. We find that a life sentence should not necessarily mean the natural life of the prisoner; it could also mean a certain minimum or maximum time to be set by the relevant judicial officer along established parameters of criminal responsibility, retribution, rehabilitation and recidivism.
96. We therefore recommend that the Attorney General and Parliament commence an enquiry and develop legislation on the definition of ‘what constitutes a life sentence’; this may include a minimum number of years to be served before a prisoner is considered for parole or remission, or provision for prisoners under specific circumstances to serve whole life sentences. This will be in tandem with the objectives of sentencing.
65. From the above paragraphs of the Muruatetu case any reading of that decision ought to lead to the conclusion that it is upon the Legislature to enact legislation on what constitutes a life sentence and not the courts.
…
70. Our findings hereinabove effectively lead us to the conclusion that the Judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered on July 7, 2023 is one for setting aside. The Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. Consequently, the life imprisonment sentence remains lawful and in line with section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act . (Emphasis supplied)
[22] The Supreme Court having pronounced itself on the matter, this Court has no jurisdiction to rule otherwise .
[23] The Petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 21 ST DAY OF MAY 2026
[2] The petitioner denied those allegations and upon the facts being tried by the learned magistrate, he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed that decision to the High Court in Homa Bay High Court Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2013: Sammy Odhiambo Odindo v Republic . That appeal was heard and dismissed on 9 th October 2014. The conviction was affirmed and sentence upheld. At paragraph 22 of the Judgment, Hon. Majanja, J. , in his judgment dated 9 th October 2014, held as follows at paragraph 22 with particular regard to the sentence imposed by the lower court:
“Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, 2006 provides that “A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.” As the child was 10 years old, the sentence imposed was therefore within the law. It was neither harsh nor excessive. I uphold the same.”
[3] Undeterred, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, being Kisumu Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2020: Sammy Odhiambo Odindo v Republic . His second appeal on conviction and sentence was similarly dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 9 th May 2025.
[4] Upon the dismissal of his second appeal, the petitioner resorted to filing the instant Petition contending that Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, which provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment deprives the court of the discretion to determine the appropriate punishment, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. The petitioner averred that in this Petition, he is not challenging his conviction, but is questioning the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence which, in his view, denied him the right to a fair trial as guaranteed under Article 50 of the Constitution.
[5] At paragraph 6 of his Petition, the petitioner averred that mandatory minimum sentences also offend Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and that the words “shall” and “not less than” in the said provisions of the Sexual Offences Act confine magistrates to passing sentences pre-determined by the legislature; thereby offending the doctrine of separation of powers.
[6] The petitioner further contended that the proviso to Section 124 of the Evidence Act, Cap 80, Laws of Kenya, is unconstitutional in so far as it distinguishes sexual offences from other offences on the crucial issue of corroboration, hence lowering the threshold of the legal burden of proof for this category of offences, contrary to Article 27 of the Constitution. He further stated that equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and fundamental freedoms, and underscores the fact that every person shall enjoy the rights and fundamental freedoms in the Bill of Rights to the greatest extent possible.
[7] At paragraph 8 of his Petition, the petitioner stated that, under Article 50(2)(p) and (q) of the Constitution, every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments for an offence, if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing and if convicted, to appeal to, or apply for review by a higher court as prescribed by law.
[8] Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for the following reliefs:
[a] A declaration that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 25, 27(1), (4), 28 and 160(1) of the Constitution.
[b] A declaration that the sentence of life imprisonment which he is serving pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional to the extent that the court was deprived of the discretion to determine the appropriate punishment taking into account the individual circumstances of his case, including mitigating factors.
[c] A declaration that the sentence of life imprisonment which he is serving pursuant to Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it took away the courts discretion, thereby ignoring the fact that the individualization of punishment requires proper consideration of the individual circumstances of each accused person.
[d] An order that the petitioner be referred back to his respective trial court for mitigation and re-sentencing pursuant Paragraphs 4.8.18 of the Judiciary Sentencing Police Guidelines, 2023.
[9] In his Supporting Affidavit filed alongside the Petition, the petitioner reiterated the factual basis of the Petition and averred that he was not challenging his conviction. He underscored his assertion that he is questioning the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences which denied him the right to fair trial under Article 50 of the Constitution. He reiterated his prayers in the Petition and averred that the matter ought to be referred back to the trial court for mitigation and resentencing in accordance with Paragraph 4.8.18 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines, 2023.
[10] The Petition was canvassed by way of written submissions, pursuant to the directions given herein on 19 th February 2026. In his written submissions, the petitioner invited the Court to interrogate the constitutionality of the sentence imposed on him. He added that fair hearing does not end with the determination of the guilt of an accused person but extends to sentencing; and that the sentencing process must also comply with constitutional standards of fairness.
[11] The petitioner submitted that, under Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, the Court is required to impose a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment where the complainant is below the age of eleven years; and therefore compels courts to impose a predetermined punishment regardless of the individual circumstances of the offender or the offence. He contended that the provision contravenes Articles 27, 28 and 48 of the Constitution as well as Paragraphs 4.8.14, 4.8.16, 4.8.17, 4.8.18, 4.8.21, 4.8.23, 4.8.25 and 4.8.26 of the Judiciary Sentencing Policy Guidelines which underscore the importance of individualized sentencing.
[12] It was further the submission of the petitioner that in administering criminal justice, the courts are enjoined to conform to international standards. In particular, the petitioner relied on Article 2(5) of the Constitution which incorporates the general rules of international law and treaties ratified by Kenya into domestic law. He urged the Court to find that Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is a negation Article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). He relied on Protus Buliba Shikuku v Attorney General , Constitutional Reference No. 3 of 2011 for the proposition that constitutional interpretation must promote justice, fairness and protection of fundamental rights.
[13] Lastly, the petitioner submitted that mandatory sentences undermine the principle of judicial independence. He relied on Article 160 of the Constitution and submitted that mandatory sentences in effect removes judicial discretion and the ability of courts to determine appropriate punishment based on the circumstances of each case. He therefore urged the Court to allow his Petition and grant the orders prayed for, including the imposition of a determinate period of imprisonment in place of life imprisonment.
[14] Counsel for the respondent filed written submissions dated 19 th February 2025 contending that this Petition is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process. According to the respondent the appellant has exhausted his right of appeal and therefore the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised by him in the Petition. Counsel submitted that the High court cannot re-open, re-hear and or entertain a matter that was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal; which is a court superior to it. The respondent posited that, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal, his option was to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court.
[15] It was further the submission of the respondent that the petitioner had not demonstrated that there is new and compelling evidence relating to his case which was not available at the time of his trial or that his rights were violated during the trial or appeal. The respondent urged the Court to find that the petitioner herein has not raised any new issue or violation of right during trial or appeal, but seeks instead to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal on sentence.
[16] The respondent further submitted that the Supreme Court of Kenya has effectively upheld the mandatory life sentence, and therefore the sentence provided for in Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act, is lawful. Counsel submitted, with reference to the case of Francis Krioko Muatetu & another v Republic [2017] eKLR, that although an avalanche of applications was thereafter made by prisoners seeking review of the mandatory sentences on the basis of that decision, the Supreme Court clarified its position in its directions issued in 2021 that the decision applied to murder cases only. It was therefore the contention of the respondent that Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act is lawful and that courts have continued to impose life sentences in defilement cases under that provision.
[17] The respondent also referred to the case of Manyeso v Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2021) and pointed out that, whereas the Court of Appeal had, in that case, declared life imprisonment unconstitutional and substituted the same with a determinate period of thirty (30) years imprisonment, that decision was overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground, inter alia, that the Court of Appeal had ventured outside its mandate and powers. Accordingly, the respondent invited the Court to dismiss the petitioner's petition for lack of merit.
[18] The penalty for defilement is prescribed in Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. It provides:
A person who commits an offence of defilement with a child aged eleven years or less shall upon conviction be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
[19] The offence, in this instance, was committed against a 10-year old child and therefore the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court was lawful for purposes of Section 8(1) as read with Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act. In the premises, the single issue for determination herein is whether the sentence of life imprisonment as provided for in Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act offends Articles 27, 28 or 48 of the Constitution.
[20] As was pointed out by counsel for the respondent, the constitutionality of the life sentence for purposes of Section 8(2) of the Sexual Offences Act was the subject of consideration in the case of Manyeso v Republic [2023] KECA 827 (KLR). The Court of Appeal took the view that:
“An indeterminate life sentence was inhumane treatment and violated the right to dignity under article 28 of the Constitution. An indeterminate life sentence without any prospect of release or a possibility of review was degrading and inhuman punishment. It was a principle in international law that all prisoners, including those serving life sentences, be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect of release if that rehabilitation was achieved.”
[21] The State appealed to the Supreme Court in Republic v Manyeso (Petition E013 of 2024) [2025] KESC 16 (KLR) (11 April 2025) (Judgment) and the Supreme Court reiterated its position that:
64. Paragraph 11 to 14 of the Muruatetu directions are very clear that the decision in the Muruatetu case did not invalidate mandatory sentences or minimum sentences in the Penal Code , Sexual Offences Act or any other statute. Further, that the Muruatetu case cannot be said to be the authority for stating that all provisions of the law prescribing minimum sentences are inconsistent with the Constitution . Paragraphs 93 to 97 of the Muruatetu decision are also explicit that it is not for the court to define what constitutes a life sentence. While we appreciated that a life sentence could mean a certain minimum or maximum time to be set by a judicial officer, this court made the following recommendations to the Attorney General to develop legislation on what constitutes a life sentence:
94. We recognize that although the Judiciary released elaborate and comprehensive Sentencing Policy Guidelines in 2016, there are no specific provisions for the sentence of life imprisonment, because it is an indeterminate sentence. Nevertheless, we are in agreement with the High Court decision in Jackson Wangui, supra, which found that it is not for the court to define what constitutes a life sentence or what number of years must first be served by a prisoner on life sentence before they are considered on parole. This is a function within the realm of the Legislature.
95. We also acknowledge that in Kenya and internationally, sentencing should not only be used for the purpose of retribution, it is also for the rehabilitation of the prisoner as well as for the protection of civilians who may be harmed by some prisoners. We find the comparative jurisprudence with regard to the indeterminate life sentence is compelling. We find that a life sentence should not necessarily mean the natural life of the prisoner; it could also mean a certain minimum or maximum time to be set by the relevant judicial officer along established parameters of criminal responsibility, retribution, rehabilitation and recidivism.
96. We therefore recommend that the Attorney General and Parliament commence an enquiry and develop legislation on the definition of ‘what constitutes a life sentence’; this may include a minimum number of years to be served before a prisoner is considered for parole or remission, or provision for prisoners under specific circumstances to serve whole life sentences. This will be in tandem with the objectives of sentencing.
65. From the above paragraphs of the Muruatetu case any reading of that decision ought to lead to the conclusion that it is upon the Legislature to enact legislation on what constitutes a life sentence and not the courts.
…
70. Our findings hereinabove effectively lead us to the conclusion that the Judgement of the Court of Appeal delivered on July 7, 2023 is one for setting aside. The Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. Consequently, the life imprisonment sentence remains lawful and in line with section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act . (Emphasis supplied)
[22] The Supreme Court having pronounced itself on the matter, this Court has no jurisdiction to rule otherwise .
[23] The Petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 21 ST DAY OF MAY 2026